agent-receipts

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and successfully discloses cryptographic behavior ('re-signed with Ed25519'), linkage mechanism ('linked to the original receipt via parent_receipt_id'), and return values ('Returns the judgment receipt ID, verdict, score, and chain ID'). Missing only safety/destructiveness context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Five tightly constructed sentences with zero waste: action/scope, data recorded, cryptographic processing, return values, and usage timing. Information is front-loaded with the primary verb, and every sentence earns its place without redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 6-parameter mutation tool with complex nested array structures and no output schema, the description adequately covers the return payload, cryptographic side effects, and workflow prerequisites. Minor gap regarding idempotency or error handling scenarios prevents a 5.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description lists the conceptual data being submitted (verdict, score, criteria_results, confidence) but adds no semantic meaning, validation rules, or format guidance beyond what the schema already provides.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific action ('Submit evaluation results to finalize a pending judgment receipt') and explicitly names the sibling tool 'judge_receipt' to establish the workflow relationship, clearly distinguishing this finalization step from receipt creation or other operations.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides explicit temporal guidance ('Use immediately after evaluating the prompt returned by judge_receipt') that establishes the sequence in the workflow. Lacks explicit 'when not to use' exclusions or alternative tools, but clearly positions the tool in the judgment lifecycle.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.